THE Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill has been passed by each Houses of Parliament after last-ditch attempts by peers to amend it were rejected by MPs during a parliamentary ping-pong that concluded just after midnight on Tuesday.
The Bill is predicted to receive Royal Assent in the approaching days.
Lords spiritual and other peers have attempted repeatedly to amend the Bill over the past few months, expressing concern on its effect on the rule of law, how the security of Rwanda will be determined accurately now and in the long run, whether modern slavery victims could be protected, and to incorporate exemptions for vulnerable groups. The House of Commons, where the Government has a cushty majority, rejected all of them.
On Monday night, two issues remained: determining safety, and whether to exempt or include members of the UK armed forces working overseas from being deported to Rwanda. Lord Browne resurrected his amendment on the latter — but later accepted what he described as a “concession” on the matter from Lord Sharpe, who read the next statement to the House: “Once this review of ARAP [Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy] decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the Government won’t remove to Rwanda those that have received a positive eligibility decision in consequence of this review, where they’re already within the UK as of today.”
No bishops spoke during these final stages, however the Bishops of Chelmsford and Derby each voted in favour of an amendment from Lord Anderson on determining safety. This required the Government to seek the advice of with the Independent Monitoring Committee in future; if the Committee didn’t agree that Rwanda was protected, the country could be deemed to not be so. It was passed by 240 to 211.
MPs rejected the amendment 312 to 237, nevertheless, and the Bill was passed unamended.
Responding, Lord Anderson described his attempt as “modest and unthreatening to the Government’s policy. But it not less than touched on a central disease of this Bill and maybe of our body politic more generally: the imputation of choices to Parliament to cut back the probabilities for challenge and the pretence that, by asserting something to be true, even within the teeth of the evidence, one can’t only make it true but keep it true for ever.”
The overall purpose of the Bill is described as to “prevent and deter illegal migration” — particularly by illegal routes — by “confirming” that the Republic of Rwanda is “a protected third country, thereby enabling the removal of individuals who arrive within the UK under the Immigration Acts”.
This is despite a Supreme Court ruling (News, 17 November 2023) that unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal ruling that the policy would depart people sent to Rwanda open to human-rights breaches (News, 7 July 2023). In 2022, the High Court had ruled that the policy was lawful (News, 23 December 2022).
In the early hours of Tuesday, a baby was reported to be amongst five individuals who drowned attempting to cross the Channel from France. The French Coastguard said that a small boat containing greater than 110 people set sail from a beach near Wimereux.
The Illegal Immigration Minister, Michael Tomlinson, said that the deterrent effect of the Bill would “kick in” once flights had began.
Before the debates on Monday night, the Prime Minister gave a press conference on the Bill, during which he said that his patience with delays to its parliamentary passage had “run thin”, and that he expected the primary chartered flights to go away for Rwanda inside ten to 12 weeks. He had initially promised that the primary flights would depart within the spring of 2024.
Mr Sunak, while giving no details in regards to the numbers of individuals to be deported under the scheme, said that he expected there to be “multiple flights a month through the summer and beyond”.
His speech prompted a backlash from refugee charities, including the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), which described the Rwanda plan as remaining “as inhumane because it is absurd. It will destroy lives, plunge vulnerable people into danger and sees us abandon our duty towards people looking for sanctuary here. And all for the sake of an election gimmick. This isn’t who we’re.”
The JRS reported that the Home Office had recently begun contacting individuals who had been refused asylum within the UK to supply “voluntary departure” to Rwanda. “JRS UK is amongst many organisations concerned about people being placed under pressure to go to Rwanda in this manner, especially as the method around such ‘voluntary departures’ lacks transparency.”
The Detention Outreach Manager for JRS UK, Naomi Blackwell, said that that prospect was “deeply terrifying for refugees. And in detention, individuals are often told nothing about what’s happening to them. It’s disproportionately difficult to get legal advice; they might not even have phone credit to ring someone to ask about it. Our politicians must stop their theatrics and keep in mind that there are actual people on the sharp end of this.”
A video from the Refugee Council, campaigning against the Government’s asylum policy, was circulated on social media over the weekend. It featured celebrities corresponding to the actors Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Daniel Radcliffe, and Luke Evans. They called on the Government to rethink proposed laws that will criminalise people who find themselves being forced to flee their homelands.
The chief executive of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, said on Monday: “Tens of 1000’s of men, women and youngsters can be stranded within the UK indefinitely, shut out from the asylum system, unable to work, unable to be returned to their very own country, and in need of indefinite support.
“The Government must stop wasting time and resources on futile endeavours and focus as an alternative on the vital task of processing asylum claims promptly and fairly.”
